10-14-2009, 12:52 AM
Hi,
However, there could be major changes to both houses that would make them much more representative of the population as a whole. A simple change would be to institute a more equitable voting system than the present 'winner take all'. Other possibilities is to change the Senate to a body representative of the voters of a state and the House representative of the nation as a whole. That would further erode the state's position in the overall scheme, but that's been pretty much a joke anyway since 1886. Term limits might be another useful ideas, although there are down sides to losing the experienced policy makers too soon. Instead of term limits it might serve better if incumbents in any post were banned from running for any office during the term they were serving. Making it for the term, rather than while in office, would eliminate the possibility of an incumbent resigning a few months before his term expires so that he can run for the same office (or any other). This proposal would fix the incumbency advantage, forcing the voters to re-evaluate the candidates at each election. It has the advantage of permitting a person to continue serving (with breaks) for as long as he wants to and the people want him.
There are many other changes and improvements that have been proposed over the years. In this, Jefferson was right, and the constitution should probably be rewritten every generation or so.
--Pete
For easy reference:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Quote:Abolish the senate. But, then, that would require the votes of Senators, so we can probably shelve that idea.Minor nit: the state legislatures can call for a convention to propose an amendment without the consent of the Senate -- indeed with no federal involvement at all. Congress gets to choose whether a proposed amendment gets voted on by the state legislatures or by state conventions. So, the federal government can be almost completely taken out of the process (never actually happened and probably never will -- but it is the law). However, the last provision would seem to indicate that the Senate cannot be abolished without the consent of all the states, although that may be a matter for interpretation, in which case, the Supreme Court would probably end up deciding the issue.
However, there could be major changes to both houses that would make them much more representative of the population as a whole. A simple change would be to institute a more equitable voting system than the present 'winner take all'. Other possibilities is to change the Senate to a body representative of the voters of a state and the House representative of the nation as a whole. That would further erode the state's position in the overall scheme, but that's been pretty much a joke anyway since 1886. Term limits might be another useful ideas, although there are down sides to losing the experienced policy makers too soon. Instead of term limits it might serve better if incumbents in any post were banned from running for any office during the term they were serving. Making it for the term, rather than while in office, would eliminate the possibility of an incumbent resigning a few months before his term expires so that he can run for the same office (or any other). This proposal would fix the incumbency advantage, forcing the voters to re-evaluate the candidates at each election. It has the advantage of permitting a person to continue serving (with breaks) for as long as he wants to and the people want him.
There are many other changes and improvements that have been proposed over the years. In this, Jefferson was right, and the constitution should probably be rewritten every generation or so.
--Pete
For easy reference:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?